Category: Elections

Swing

The results are in. They are exceptional in the true sense of the word. The Labour Party pushed aside two large Conservative Party majorities[1]. The momentum for change is gathering pace. It’s not slowing. Those motivated to go out and vote on Thursday sent a strong message.

The Labour Party candidate was victorious in Mid Bedfordshire despite all three major British political parties putting up a fight. Only a tiny minority are going to miss the former Conservative MP Nadine Dorries. At least for the next year, or so the constituents of Mid Bedfordshire will have some form of representation in Parliament.

Overturning massive electoral majorities doesn’t happen every day. The Conservatives were sitting on a majority of more than 24,000 and now it’s all gone. It’s true that the voter turnout in a byelection doesn’t match that of a UK General Election but in the face of such a massive swing this is immaterial. Even making the case that defending parties are often on the back foot doesn’t make much difference.

Having been on the doorstep in Mid Bedfordshire my impression is that the mood was for change. Immediate change. The electorate is smart when it comes to making choices. In this case they have chosen those they perceive as most likely to deliver what they want.

Commentators have described this as a “political earthquake” for the Conservatives. The references to May 1997 are flooding out of media outlets. How can they not? Similar percussors were evident in the years leading up to Tony Blair’s victory over the then Conservative Prime Minister John Major. 

Are we heading for a UK General Election in 2024 that mimics the results of May 1997? A simple reading of public opinion does point in that direction, at the moment.

With a year to go, and all that may bring, it would be hubris to assume that a General Election result can be predicted. In 1964, Labour politician Harold Wilson famously said: a week is a long time in politics. That’s as true now as it ever was. In fact, volatility is a mark of our age.

Despite the wisdom of caution, with the legacy that the Conservatives have accumulated, it would be remarkable in the absolute extreme if they did engineer a sustained recovery in the next year.  

It’s an American saying, and with some argument over its attribution – politicians, like diapers, should be changed regularly. The meaning is clear. There are times when change is the imperative. The exact nature of the change is not as important as the fact that change takes place.

That’s where we are. There’s a hunger to put the dreadful political mess of the last decade behind us. To aim for higher goals. To look ahead with ambition and optimism.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67126173

Voting

We could call them Thursday boxes. In the UK byelections take place on a Thursday. Ballot boxes and polling stations are open for the full day. This Thursday there are two important parliamentary byelections taking place in England. Both seats have been occupied by Conservative politicians and by the end of the day that may no longer be the case.

Named after the Norse god of Thunder, Thor, our Thursday is a good day to make changes. There’s the next working day to absorb the implications of any change. Then there’s the coming Monday to make a new start. The UK has stuck with Thursday as election day, with few exceptions.

One theory is that Thursday was often a market day in the towns of England. Thus, people would be gathered in town squares where polling stations could be located. This gave election candidates an opportunity to meet and treat the electorate on their way to cast their votes. Remember the voting franchise was for land and property owners over much of British history.

Fridays have been paydays. So, the voter may have been more absorbed in shopping, socialising and winding-up the working week than listening to campaigning politicians. Making a Friday visit to a polling booth a low priority. This is more the case after the passing of the Great Reform Act[1].

Now, it may be advantageous to move voting day to weekends to maximise the number of people who would be free to vote in-person. However, you could say that we have a 24-hour society and postal voting is popular, so the day of the week is no longer a big deal. It maybe the case that on-line voting will eventually take the place of the traditional in-person marking a cross on a paper ballot. That would open-up the opportunity to have a similar scheme to postal voting and open-up the ballot to more than one day.

Going back to the past, Sundays would have been reserved for religious services. That’s more political than one might first imagine. The Church of England vicar imploring parishioners to be good might also look down at the landed gentry in the front row and recommends voting in a particular way. Naturally, in a Methodist chapel, or other non-conformist chapel, down the road another congregation might be given different heavenly advice.

Has Thursday been adopted to minimise the influence of the Church or the public house? The reason for the choice of Thursday has been lost in the mists of time. That doesn’t matter so much given that there’s still some good reasons to continue the tradition.

Personally, I hope that in-person voting at a polling station will always be part of the British electoral system. However much the world around us is being digitised so that we interface with colourful Apps and websites there’s nothing quite like putting a cross in a box with a pencil.

The trail of evidence it provides and the pure satisfaction of the physical act of marking a paper must be preserved. It a ritual that emphasises the importance of voting. Even for those who choose to deface their voting papers this is an important democratic process.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/

Get Back

The big picture story is that Europe needs unity more and more to face the future.

Today, a National Rejoin March takes place in London. This march takes place when it’s all to evident that Brexit has been an abject failure. Having the bravery to admit that Brexit is a failure remains challenging. UK political leaders are shying away from admitting the reality of our common situation.

Thousands of those who support the UK being a European Union (EU) member are gathering in the capital. It’s time to ensure a message gets sent that re-joining the EU is a popular and gaining momentum. Members of Parliament (MPs) may not be in Parliament on the weekend, but the message sent by those on the city’s streets is strong and clear.

It’s true that this is a frustrating experience. I’ve been on many organised London marches. They are characterised by their camaraderie, positivity, and great spirit. Marching makes a difference to the people who march and it’s also makes a wider impact. Media coverage may be sparce. What they do see and hear is a sense of solidarity and unity.

Sadly, there are no apparent results flowing from this national campaign, so far. The UK’s out of touch political parties are trying to look the other way. Today, the fearful nature of the bland mixture of our political leaders is immensely disappointing. They scurry around like little brown rats. Looking busy but terrified of stepping outside their comfort zone.

Tinkering with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson will deliver only more disappointment. Papering over that public disappointment, we can rely on a part of the tabloid media spinning threatening stories. The artificial culture wars raging between the political right and left have little to do with reality. This noisy nonsense plunders the opportunity to make life better for the vast majority. It’s a side show.

The big picture story is that Europe needs unity more and more to face the future. If it’s climate change, war, immigration, or economic troubles sustainable solutions cannot be found in isolation. Our region of the world is so interconnected and interdependent that events in one part of Europe inevitably affect others. Brexit does not work.

Future generations will look back on this era as being a regressive one. Opportunities lost and difficulties increased by a lack of political bravery. A lack of direction. A lack of leadership. This will be overcome in time, but that change will not come soon enough.

POST: Reporting on the event Pro-EU supporters march for Britain to rejoin the European Union (france24.com)

Views

Journalists do a vital job. See, I’ve said it. It’s true. Now, I get on to the “but”. Afterall, what’s the point in writing unless there’s a point to make. I’m talking about the factual reporting rather than the more fanciful material.

I notice this frequently. It’s on the radio, its in the newspapers, it’s on TV. Basically, we have more and more journalists talking to journalists, particularly in the political domain. My purely subjective impression is not science, even if I’m sure it could be backed up by numbers.

Commentary is good and good commentary is even better. Understanding the complexities of our mixed-up multifaceted society needs some help. There’s always the difficulty of having so much information that none of us can see the wood for the trees. Careful and thoughtful analysis helps.

So, I’m not having a downer on journalists. It’s just, I get annoyed when there’s a parade of interviews that are nothing more than journalists asking other journalists questions. There’s that image of a snake eating its tail. The more that News comes from one place, to be analysed by one group of people and then to be scrutinised by the same, the more the mouth and the tail met.

When I’m in the car, soaking up time in a traffic jam on the M25, I listen to LBC[1]. Although this radio station has its interminable monologues from its presenters, at least the phone in format means that some of the public get aired. However, cranky, and unfathomable their views it’s always good to hear what people have to say.

I’ve been doing some doorstepping. Canvasing people. It’s a great way to get to know what people are thinking. Not everyone wants to talk. That aside, there’s always plenty that do. From that experience a fascinating range of opinions comes to the fore. A swirling range of views.

Don’t get the wrong impression. Not everyone is seething with anger about the state of the world. A few are that’s for sure. There’s still plenty of hopeful folk who are engaged in their communities constantly trying to make the best of things. Knowing a little of the good and bad of a community’s experiences is a great insight. It’s far more interesting than pitching one media columnist against another.

Perhaps the format of the BBC’s Question Time[2] ought to be completely changed. Have an audience full of journalists and politicians and a panel made up of the public. There could be a postcode lottery to pick members of the public to sit on the panel.

It’s might not be easy to put together. It’s said public speaking is a top fear of most people. Finding people who would take up the offer who would genuinely embrace it and not go too much off the wall, would be challenging. I’m not calling for a revival of what Jerry Springer was famed for.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qxgz

Get Back

It’s painful to watch. Frightening. Seeing them take over London. Yes, I did hide behind the sofa when the Cybermen[1] came on. But then again, I was only around 6 or 7-years old. They converted humans to their kind by removing emotions and personalities. Scary stuff. The sort of evil creatures that nightmares are made of. With bodies made of cybernetic parts they seemed undefeatable but like so many great science fiction stories they had weaknesses, and the Doctor knew them. My early Dr Who knew exactly what to do.

In this case it’s not fiction that I’m writing about. Just the same it was painful to watch. Frightening. Seeing them take over London and the whole country. We had years of this scary drama. In fact, its still going on around us now. Laura Kuenssberg’s State of Chaos[2] has been a true horror story. This week I caught the Part 2. I don’t think I can take another Part.

History is being penned quickly in our media age. Watching the story of how our political system was smashed-up by a bunch of marauding, well, I don’t know what to call them. Is there a collective term for careless, egotistic, idiotic, manic, obsessive, power-hungry politicians? A term one can use in polite company, that is.

Since 2016, and to a lesser degree just before, the march of Conservative politicians has been to the tune with a dangerous beat. Smash-up the norms, disregard sound advice and steam ahead with blind arrogance. Much of this is epitomised by the character of Boris Johnson, but there are so many other in the cast strange and obsessive people.

Kuenssberg must tread a fine line because getting caught up in the finger pointing polarisation of the politicians is perilous. In her time as BBC Political Editor, it must have been like walking across Niagara on a tightrope every day.

The State of Chaos is giving us a new perspective on the Conservative Party’s on-going civil war. It seems the situation was even worse than we had been led to believe. This documentary is a treasure-trove of extraordinary material that is only a sample of what happened.

I’d say we all agree. It doesn’t matter which side of the Brexit argument that you stand or stood. Utter chaos has transpired in the reign of the last 5 Conservative Prime Ministers. Interviewees can point fingers at each other, all the same the word chaos applies.

In the coming months the lessons from this fearful period need to be learned. A new normal need to be established. We need to get back[3] what we have lost. Get back a sense of responsibility. Get back a reputation for competence. Get back ambition for the future.

[1] Dr Who. The Cybermen first appear in the serial The Tenth Planet in 1966, set in 1986.

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001qgww/laura-kuenssberg-state-of-chaos

[3] I must be channelling The Beatles.

Blind alley

It only takes a few seconds of listening to the UK Government’s spokesperson Sarah Dines MP this morning to realise that the Conservative approach to a serious subject is peppered with one thing. It’s desperation and fear of losing the coming General Election. At every chance an interviewer will stand, such Conservative MPs take the opportunity to dam their opposition rather than answer questions addressing their responsibilities.

I get my news and current affairs top-up every morning via BBC Radio 4. I guess that’s becoming a rarer and rare phenomenon. Yes, as a radio dinosaur, I still have faith in the power of a well-constructed and probing radio interview. Sadly, an interviewer’s best efforts to get to the core of a subject are often thwarted by repetitious political soundbites.

“With respect” is a pernicious way of diverting a conversation away from questions that are embarrassing and hard to answer. That horrid amalgam of lawyerly pomposity and public relations training puts me off my breakfast. 

It’s clear the Rwanda saga is purely political. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Sarah Dines struggled to make a coherent argument. Let’s be quite honest. Threatening to ship immigrants off to Africa is not going to stop immigration.

Stopping the “pull factor” is not going to work by such measures. Those prepared to accept high risks to their lives, in precarious situations will not be put-off by administrative and bureaucratic shuffling in the UK Home Office. For those who have been at the mercy of murderous criminals, as they have made their way into Europe, they are not going to be put off by a lawyerly Minister preaching on morning radio.

This makes headlines in tabloid newspapers and maybe that’s its sole aim. The flaccid excuses given by Conservatives using bad law to make bad decisions for bad political reasons is wasting resources and lives.

Whatever the image makers would like us to see, those who vigorously supported Boris Johnson and Liz Truss as Conservative leaders are still running the country. The 2019 intake of Conservative MPs is jittering and prepared to spout any nonsense to cling on to their seats.

The British people deserve so much better.

Try again

One of the benefits of democracy is captured in the ideals that underpin it. The fact that an average citizen should be able to influence the society they live in is a big plus. There are plenty of regimes in the world where this benefit is not available. Power is secured and held by a dictatorial few.  

So, here we are in “western” societies at a difficult point in history. Those ideals, that get people to go out an put a cross in a box or put their names forward for election are being challenged. Having done the latter many times, I feel confident in speaking on this subject.

Although each one of us has the freedom to stand for election. To put our point of view forward. To speak freely about our beliefs, and notions as to how the world should work. That is, with the caveat on free speech being the expectation that shouting “fire” in a crowded space, when there’s no fire will be punished. We seem to be stuck in a tide of populism dominated by unusually wealthy people.  By a tiny group.

This is not a rant about wealth. It’s more an observation that despite all our freedoms, our societies still pick people who have exceptional privileges and monstrous egos. In the UK and US, both those in power and those seeking power are often people who do not share the lived experiences of the majority or a “real” understanding of how life is lived in our diverse communities.  

The migration of politics into the realms of soap opera is disturbing. If we look to leaders as a source of amusement, entertainment and sometime fear the outcome is likely to be very bad. Putting a clown in charge of the steering wheel and brakes only works in a circus arena.

We need to reignite the ideals of democracy. To make sure that despite the loud voices permeating the daily news, and talking over each other, a single citizen’s views will be heard. It’s troubling when authorities and administration, politically or bureaucratically motivated, ride rough shod over citizens and communities. This morning, I heard the foolish technocratic notion that all that needs to be done is to better explain. That is not to better take account of or honour the view of citizens and communities but just to explain more. To talk more as a parent telling a child about what’s good for them and what’s not.

Populism succeeds by creating turmoil and by constantly pointing the finger of blame at others. Liberals will not find an answer to this sordid mess by acting and talking as technocrats.

With all the communication tools available to us in 2023, we ought to be able to make sure that no one is left behind. To make sure that genuine concerns, at the grass roots are heard as powerfully as the loud cries of the self-serving demigods. If we haven’t succeeded in this simple aim, we need to try again, and again, and again.

Over the Horizon

Reading Anne Corbett’s article on the Horizon Europe research programme[1], I’m struck by the one step forward and then one step backward walk that the UK is taking. The politics of the moment leaves a UK Prime Minister (PM) dancing on a knife edge. Afraid to fall to the right or to the left of his own party. Having been part of an extremely destructive period in British politics, Rishi Sunak is attempting to re-brand the Conservatives with a colour of nationalism that’s designed to be anything to everybody and as variable as the wind.

From the start of the year, Rishi Sunak has made five promises[2] on economy, health, and immigration. The one on the economy is steeped in blandness. This is presumably to claim success regardless of the situation in the run-up to the next UK General Election. If a PM, of any political party, didn’t want to grow the economy, create better paid jobs and opportunity across the country there would be something distinctly wrong. A wish is fine but what about actions?

I have to say that it’s good to see a UK PM that’s 20-years younger than I am. Particularly when the US is playing out a game of geriatric musical chairs. Russia being plagued with the politics of generations past. China’s building global influence. And to top it all the Earth feeling the impact of climate change like never before.

This why I have such difficulty in understanding Sunak’s attitude to working with our nearest neighbours and closest allies. We have more common interests now than we did in the 1970s when the UK first joined our local trading block. I’m sure the zealots can’t see this fact but undoing the last 40-years is not a good way to forge a future. We can do so much better.

Culham is known for its Centre for Fusion Energy[3]. Its work is collaborative. It needs to be, given the huge costs of working in the field of fusion energy. That’s the way the Sun generates its energy. Here’s an example of the UK being a focal point for European fusion research. Post Brexit, like the problems other research institutions have faced, some researchers returned to continental Europe.

The idiocy of de-Europeanisation serves no one. It’s a residual of discredited political thinking. A Government doesn’t need to advocate re-joining the European Union (EU) but they do need a whole new positive approach to working together with European countries and institutions. Research is at the core of our common interests.

[1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/07/28/will-the-uk-find-its-way-back-to-horizon/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64166469

[3] https://ccfe.ukaea.uk/

ULEZ

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe

Oh yes. London has an air quality problem. It’s not the only city by any means. My recent trip to Cologne left me in no doubt that cities must address this problem. It’s an insidious hazard. It’s not so – in your face – as noise or water pollution. We’ve this human capacity to normalise bad things. Much to our detriment. Air quality becomes most evident when you move from a place of bad air quality to a place of good air quality. Then the difference becomes acutely noticeable.

Last weekend, I was in the West Country. Way down the A303. The difference is quite striking.

Last evening, I was traveling on the Tube to get to the Albert Hall. The difference is quite striking.

Whatever you may think about the implementation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London, there’s a need to do something drastic.

Expanding ULEZ across all London Boroughs from 29 August 2023 is getting a lot of political attention. No doubt some of this is whipped up purely to punish the Labour Mayor. However, the dilemma is clear. Penalising a lot of people who are not directly feeling the discomfort of poor air quality is inevitably going to cause a stink.

Now, we shouldn’t get disproportionately agitated. That fact is that poor air quality is killing people is not in question. The fact that a small fraction of vehicle owners will be made to pay is not in question[1]. The balancing act between reliving an unacceptable situation of harm and causing minimal economic pain is a tricky one. It would be a tricky one for whoever was in power.

My view is that measure that force people to change their vehicles should be accompanied with a practical scheme to compensate them for significant financial losses. Or that the emissions thresholds set should take account of the natural turn-over of vehicles that takes place in normal years. The political controversy of the moment is much because of the speed of change and its coincidence with a cost-of-living crisis that is very real.

Londoners in all Boroughs need clearer air to breathe. But London doesn’t sit in isolation. Afterall the Borough boundaries do not track urban boundaries. Parts of adjoining areas are equally urbanised, and the air doesn’t know about administrative boundaries. The M25 motorway doesn’t do much for air quality, that’s for sure. So, hearing of the London Mayor doing battle with adjoining areas is a bit sad. Solutions need to be negotiated with all impacted parties regardless of the politics.

By the way, I’m not impressed with communications from Transport for London. I clicked on an e-mail sent to me on the above subject and this came up: “This link has expired. Please contact the sender of the email for more information.” Thanks a lot.

[1] More than 4 out of 5 vehicles meet emissions standards, but if you use a petrol vehicle over 16 years old, or a diesel vehicle over 6 years old, you need to check it.

Energy Policy

Saint Augustine’s early life was not what we associate with a saint. As a young man he prayed “Lord, make me chaste (pure) – but not yet!” Just now that’s the way, I fear, we are thinking of the environment. Global, national, or local. It’s total human but it needs to be fully recognised for its downside. Yes, we would like to do more to restore our environment and fight climate change but we’d rather it happened tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow.

The instinctive urge to put-off decisions for what appears to be an easier life now rattles down through history. The lesson we might learn is that this approach is generally a bad way of going about thing if long-term success is the aim. Civilizations have ended because they failed to change.

This blinkered approach could be called political expediency. It’s at the core of what has become political populism[1]. The drive to persuade an electorate by retreating from commitments and heralding jam today. This fits our social media saturated public debate to the tee. I want it, and I want it now. The future will look after itself.

It’s a sad philosophy. I say that because the premises is that we may as well live well today because we have no control over what happens next. In populist terms, that’s put down to an imaginary conspiring elite that will inevitably win regardless of what you do. Truly nonsense.

That might have been true in the stone age but its far from true in the 21st Century. In reality, and on average, individual citizens have more choice than they have ever had. I say “on average” because there’s a billion people in the world who still live on the breadline.

Anyway, my point is that putting-off environmental measure is foolish. I’m reacting to a Conservative Energy Minister, has said that the UK government will “max out” remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas[2]. I’s almost as if the Minister thinks this has no impact. That’s other than short-term political gain amongst climate sceptics and right-wing newspaper owners.

If the target for Net Zero is – yes but not yet – there’s virtually no hope of achieving the goal. Events being what they are there will never be a perfect time to stop using fossil fuels. I’m in agreement that the rundown of fossil fuel use should be graduated. However, putting off real change doesn’t make change easier. In fact, it makes change harder.

In the run-up to a UK General Election the possibilities for policies of self-harm are all too evident. A Conservative Government desperate to cling on to power will wriggle and produce contorted justifications for delay. It’s a basic instinct.

I’m not saying that we should all become zealous exponent of hairshirt policies. What is desperate is that we don’t become side-tracked from practical measures that can be practically taken. Taken now.

Work as though everything depended on you, and the choices you make. That needs to be true of Government Ministers as much as every one of us[3].

[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/populism-definition-and-examples-4121051

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/407b834e-a503-4de9-acab-fcf88d76dbb3

[3] Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you. Saint Augustine